I don’t know everything about these cases in the CREC, that’s what people say. I don’t know what the elders know, and I’m just stirring the pot needlessly. So I should just stop talking about it.
Here’s the truth: I’ve known far more about these sexual abuse cases than what I’ve published or commented on, and with Natalie deciding today that she was comfortable sharing a letter Doug Wilson wrote back in August of 2005, I can now discuss it publicly. Natalie’s story behind the letter Doug wrote is laid out here. In this letter to an officer who was involved in collecting evidence for the court case, Doug notes that “I do not believe this situation in any way paints Jamin as a sexual predator,” claiming that he was privy to “confessions” from the family that proves Jamin Wight is not a sexual predator — namely, that the family knew there was a romantic relationship between 24-year-old Jamin and 14-year-old Natalie. Knowing how much pain the family has already gone through I’m not getting all that far into the details, but it is relevant to point out that this particular vein of victim-blaming set the family at odds with one another (such things plant the seed of doubt and paranoia — maybe someone else made the confession and now is denying it?) and helped to drive them apart. Suffice it to say that as far as I have been able to figure, no such confession was ever made. Certainly what Doug claims to the court is true is not in fact true — and if it was true, legally speaking, it should have made zero difference. 14-year-olds can’t legally consent to sexual relationships with 24-year-olds, even if, for the sake of argument, the 14-year-old’s family is shoving the two together aggressively. But regardless of the fact that this assertion should have made zero legal difference, it seems to have had an impact on Jamin Wight’s sentencing.
So why would Doug assert such a thing, under privilege of his role as a confessor — that a big chunk of the blame of this statutory rape case lay with the family? Did Jamin convince him this was true? Does Doug want the parents and the victim to be at fault rather than (only) the perpetrator? Did Doug have some other reason to assert all this to the court? Again, I don’t know, but I can say: follow the money trail of the break up of this particular family and observe how Doug ties in.
In any case, I’m happy that these things are finally being brought into the light of day.